Posted on 06/17/2010 11:04:29 AM PDT by woodb01
Vanna, Vanatu, Vanuatu, one of them for’in places with no internet regulations....
If you don’t own a shortwave radio .... GET ONE!!!!!!
You’re going to need it soon just to hear the true news.
If all you have is the radio, no....you can’t talk on them. If you have a full setup, then yes. You can also use a CB radio and have it modified and beefed up. I didn’t tell you to do that though.
The same reason they can’t decide what words get spoken over their phone lines, or Sony gets to decide what gets played on its radios. They own the hardware, but do not get to determine what gets said with it. The day Net Neutrality as a concept dies is the day that corporate control of communication becomes dominant.
That is the reality right now. I prefer it to government control of communication. I can always change my provider if I don't like it.
I think you have mistaken me for Marion Barry or Al Gore or someone else...
I’ll be planting lead seeds in their face.
The chimney, in a factory in the city of Vantaa near Finland's capital...?
The chair is against the wall.....
A la the Unions and ObamaCare, the labor unions and the Rancid Media will be exempted from any such regulating...
And the regulations going by the name of Net Neutrality, as legislated in the Markey Bill is anything but a positive for free expression. Just ask yourself if an internet regulation being promoted by dems, opposed by republicans, opposed by internet providers who actually have a stake in the process, and being supported by just about every left-wing activist group out there is really a positive thing for free expression.
Many Americans have no more choice in internet providers than they have in electric companies, or trash pickup.
It is the Flavor-Aid that has been drunk on the other side. There are actually a couple of issues here.
One, is net neutrality, that is, treating internet content equally, not putting up toll booths on the Internet, not treating an ISP's customers as leverage to milk money out of content providers. The only people against this are the ISPs, of course, and those who have drunk the Flavor-Aid from their multiple astroturf organizations and bribes to politicians.
The other is what net neutrality has morphed into, restrictions on content on the Internet. Note that this is exactly the opposite of net neutrality. It has morphed into this for two reasons.
One, the above astroturf organizations and paid politicians want to demonize net neutrality, so they simply lie about it, turn it into a conservative cause, and sheeple conservatives lap it up.
The other is that the Democrats want to control the Internet, and they see this thing that is popular with the people called net neutrality, so they take it and turn it on its head. Now they have a bunch of ideals, such as the fairness doctrine (which net neutrality would outlaw), and slip it into the public discussion as net neutrality. This way the people who thought they were for freedom by supporting anything under the net neutrality name don't even know they're supporting the opposite.
As far as any control over the Internet, it is an interesting choice. Do you want the government telling ISPs they can't do certain things, or do you want to be your ISP's bitch just because they have a monopoly on the last-mile?
Please have a look-see into the group who is at the forefront of pushing net 'neutrality':
Google and other content-providing companies who would have to pay billions to the ISPs to get their content to you are at the forefront of pushing net neutrality.
“Many Americans have no more choice in internet providers than they have in electric companies, or trash pickup.”
I am throwing the BS flag on this call!
Satellite Internet is available EVERYWHERE! Even out in the sticks! You can get a phone line ANYWHERE, so at the very least, you have TWO options!
This is the reason the FCC has assumed the authority to declare the Internet as a public utility. It is up to Congress to tell them they can't, and they haven't, I doubt they will.
SORRY frogjerk,
got the wrong post reference... It’s been about a year since I last visited FR... My bad. Just saw this WSJ snippet and realized that it could have HUGE impacts. Especially since the Demo-Fascists are bent on power and control.
After all, we are talking about the political machine that wants:
1. Dead babies,
2. Terrorists provided U.S. Constitutional rights,
3. Pervert marriage although a vast majority of the public is against it (i.e. “gay” marriage).
4. Disrupt the military with a radical change in policy for “don’t ask don’t tell”.
THE FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, by providing “marriage” benefits to gays (i.e. they are violating FEDERAL LAW that specifically excludes gays).
5. The complete and total attack on capitalism with regressive taxation.
6. The complete destruction of the American economy with insane spending sprees (like drunken sailors, or maybe more like HEROIN addicts looking to steal from Americans for their next fix).
etc., etc., etc., add to the list as you see fit...
Promoted by dems and supported by left-wingers is scary. Opposed by Republicans isn't since they've been duped by another entity you've mentioned, the ISPs, who do not want the government to interfere with them milking more profit out of the last-mile by imposing toll-booths to companies that provide content. You failed to mention who else supports it, pretty much every content-providing company out there.
Now that refers to net neutrality, NOT fairness doctrine or anything else the Democrats want to pass under the guise of net neutrality.
That is much more choice than some Government Bureaucrat telling them where they can surf.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.